So this is how the GIMP community has handled this issue so far: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171184
My comment #6 is a shorter version of your blog entry (and unfortunately it contains many, many typos).

I know I’m paranoid, but IMO the background of some of the people who take part in such “punitive expeditions” should be examined more closely – after all, a “GPL software must not be sold” attitude *is* a good thing for vendors of non-GPL software. Viral marketing, anyone?

Later comments indicate that there is a lack of a standard procedure in the case of a suspected GPL violation – someone should just have bought one copy from them (and get compensate from the donations, if this would have been a problem), examined it and reported what he found.

But I also have to agree with Michael, I mean come on… “batch file”? These are kids who have read slashdot and perhaps a page or two from the OSI. I’m not convinced this is a problem within our community.

Still, I wish the philosophy and motivations of the community were more apparent to outsiders who think it’s just a “let’s kill microsoft dead” deal.

Can you back up any of your claims that what they’re doing is legal with… I don’t know… anything? You say they didn’t modify the copyrights in the source code. So why don’t you post some snippets of that source code for us?

Sure its not the best way to give back but they do provide a form of advocacy that we do not.

Imagine the delight of a user who discovers that the software they paid for 3 months ago can be freely downloaded and run on the platform of their choice.

So the digg kiddies who did this arent open source developers in my opinion because they dont hold the view that this is allowed by terms of our license and can be in many cases beneficial first step into free/libre software for people who otherwise wouldnt consider us.

If inkscape is being rebranded at least they are promoting the use of free standards like svg so that artists can make a contribution

It’s true that he was within his rights to sell the software, but he did so in a deceptive way that was harmful to both his customers and to the free software community. He obviously relied on misleading his customers to prevent them from knowing that they could easily download the same software for free (even modifying screenshots on his site to remove identifying marks). When the customers inevitably found out, they sent angry letters to us (the open-source developers) because he left our names as the only contact information in the program. He offered no useful support to his customers. For a long time, dealing with angry Luxuriousity buyers accounted for more effort than any other user-support issue on our mailing lists. As a free software developers, we thrive on the goodwill of our users. In a very real way, Luxuriousity poisoned that goodwill, sapping both our time and our motivation.

The Audacity developers exchanged several email threads with the owner of Luxuriousity, and he was unwiling to take any steps to work with us, or even to mitigate the obvious problems caused by his deceptive business practices.

In my opinion, free software distributors (like all businesses) have a clear ethical obligation to be honest with their customers about the nature of their products. I have no problem with companies like Red Hat selling Linux CDs with Audacity, or with Griffin bundling Audacity with their sound hardware. But eBay scammers selling CD-Rs disguised as commercial software are providing a useful profit to no one, and ultimately harming the community they’re profiting from.

Right now, I’m seeing a two-front war here:

OSS Communities vs. Dubious Reseller vs. Vigilante Justice

IMO two lines have to be drawn here – define what “dubious” means, and show the vigilantes that their actions aren’t tolerated, either.